Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon

The Legal 500 Hall of Fame Icon The Legal 500 Hall of Fame highlights individuals who have received constant praise by their clients for continued excellence. The Hall of Fame highlights, to clients, the law firm partners who are at the pinnacle of the profession. In Europe, Middle East and Africa, the criteria for entry is to have been recognised by The Legal 500 as one of the elite leading lawyers for seven consecutive years. These partners are highlighted below and throughout the editorial.
Click here for more details

Denmark > Legal Developments > Law firm and leading lawyer rankings


Supreme Court ruling on compensation under the Part-Time Employment

Discrimination - Equal Treatment Act
Supreme Court ruling on compensation under the Part-Time Employment Act
A dental assistant who was dismissed after refusing to work full time was awarded 3 months’ pay by the ‎Danish Supreme Court.‎ 
Part-time employees are protected against discrimination under the Danish Part-Time Employment Act. ‎If an employer dismisses a part-time employee and the employee can show that there is reason to ‎believe that the reason for the dismissal was the employee’s wish to work part time, the onus of ‎disproving this will be on the employer. But what standard of proof applies to the employer then? This ‎issue was considered by the Danish Supreme Court in this case.‎
Two dentists who owned a clinic together needed to increase the number of dental assistant hours. The ‎clinic was in the process of being ISO certified, the dental hygienist was returning from her maternity ‎leave and one of the dentists wanted to work longer hours. The clinic had a total of four dental ‎assistants, all of them part-time employees. To achieve the extra number of hours needed, the dentists ‎gave notice to the dental assistant working the least number of hours that she would have to work 24 ‎instead of 37 hours a week.‎
The dental assistant did not want to transfer to full time and was then dismissed. She believed that her ‎dismissal was contrary to the Danish Part-Time Employment Act because she had refused to switch to ‎full time, and she contacted her trade union. The dentists, on the other hand, believed that dismissing ‎the assistant and hiring a new full-time assistant was justified by operational needs. After the lower ‎court’s judgment, the case was appealed twice, thus ending up before the Danish Supreme Court.‎
Not a considerable inconvenience
The Supreme Court believed that the dental assistant had established a presumption of discrimination ‎because she had been dismissed immediately after refusing to work full time. Thus, the burden of proof ‎shifted and the dentists were then required to prove that the request for the dental assistant to work ‎full time was justified by operational needs.
The Supreme Court accepted the dentists’ need for more assistant hours, but was not satisfied that it ‎would have been a considerable inconvenience or disproportionately costly for them to cover the need ‎for additional hours by hiring another part-time dental assistant. Accordingly, the dentists had failed to ‎discharge the burden of proof, and the dental assistant was awarded 3 months’ pay in compensation ‎under the Danish Part-Time Employment Act.‎
The Supreme Court thus overruled the High Court, which had ruled in favour of the dentists. Click here ‎‎to see our commentary on the ‎High Court judgment.‎
Norrbom Vinding notes:
  • that the ruling, which is specific to the facts of the case, seems to impose relatively strict ‎requirements on the employer’s proof that it is impossible to accommodate the operational ‎needs of the business other than by dismissing a part-time employee who has refused to ‎transfer to full time; and‎

  • that the Danish Supreme Court did not address the issue of whether section 4a(3) of the Danish ‎Part-Time Employment Act also covers the situation where an employee is dismissed for ‎refusing to work longer hours, as the parties to the case agreed that this situation was covered ‎by the Act.‎
The above does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such
For more information please visit

Interview with...

Law firm partners and practice heads explain how their firms are adapting to clients' changing needs

International Law Firm Networks

International comparative guides

Giving the in-house community greater insight to the law and regulations in different jurisdictions.

Select Practice Area

GC Powerlist -

International Law Firm Networks